Guest Posted July 30, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ July 30 2002,09:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm not trying bash you europeans(which you are  ).But I don't like the bs comments about the US,I mean bash bush until you die,but don't be  upset because your finally risking your troops in a american war(haven't heard that in a long time),When US were risking their soldiers in europe wars.<span id='postcolor'> No, you are missing the point. We are saying that Bosnia is as much our problem as it was yours while Afganistan is strictly your problem. I am not however going to defend the EU when it comes to the Balkans since it really showed that it isn't capable of doing anything. This is due to the fact that Europe is in no way coherent and there is a lot of internal disagreement. In the Balkans case you had the classical European Germany vs France, England, Russia. Germany supported the newly formed countries (Slovenia, Croatia, through history always very close allies to Germany) while England, France and Russia were pro-Serb (again old coallitions). Sweden took as always its chickenshit approach of "everybody is equally guilty". So thinking that European politics is coherent and homegenous is very wrong. Therefor it is a very strong indicator that something is wrong with the current US international policy if all the European countries have managed to agree on that. Hell, even Tony Blair, Americas favourite pet told Bush to shove his new Iraq plans up the tailpipe. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDRZulu 0 Posted July 30, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It looks to me like the military is doing a good job in afghanistan.<span id='postcolor'> They probably are but I don't think there is enough personel and possibly equipment to keep troops in Afghanistan to keep it stable plus have troops for an emergency in the states then more troops to move on to another country. I don't know the #'s but I've heard there isnt enough of em. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Longinius 1 Posted July 30, 2002 "wasn't poland invaded ? and most of europe didn't do anything ? i could be wrong" Sept 1, 1939 - Nazis invade Poland. Sept 3, 1939 - Britain, France, Australia and New Zealand declare war on Germany. Sept 4, 1939 - British Royal Air Force attacks the German Navy. Yeah, it took them three days before the first engagement. Wow, they should have acted faster... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted July 30, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USSoldier11B @ July 30 2002,09:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No but his lack of mid-east policy just deteriorates the situation. American as an importrant player must have a clear policy. You can't one day say that the pals. are terrorists and that Isral can run them over if they wish and then the next day say that the pals. have a right to their own country and that Israel needs to back off. <span id='postcolor'> I disagree. There are plenty of Muslim theoracies in which the Palestinian people can live. As it is, they thrive off of providing services for Israel and would be destitute without them. Yes there are radical Israelis, but Israel allows muslims to live in thier country, do you think it would be the same if it were Palestine running the show? No, every last Jew would be driven out. There is only one Jewish home nation, but plenty of muslim ones.<span id='postcolor'> You disagree with what? All I said was that Bush is pro-Israel one day and pro-Palestinian the other. The result is that neither the Palestinians nor the Israelii like him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
USSoldier11B 0 Posted July 30, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am sorry to disagree. Sweden has nothing to do with Bosnia and Kosovo. Europe is not one country, if you dÃdn't know. <span id='postcolor'> No, but the EU might as well be. I sit and watch as the tendrils of socialism slip through Western Europe. Slowly...ohhh..sooo...slowly your rights are being taken away. Socialism might work for a small microcasm culture like Sweden, but not for a larger more culturaly diverse nation, such as the U.S. People are way to greedy and ambitious for it to ever work. It's a noble idea, but impractical. I fear the EU will one day be consolidated into one socialist state. If it truly works how it's supposed to then great....but I doubt it. Socialism is just another tool used by the elite totalitarian to control the masses. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
foxer 0 Posted July 30, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ July 30 2002,09:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"wasn't poland invaded ? and most of europe didn't do anything ? i could be wrong" Sept 1, 1939 - Nazis invade Poland. Sept 3, 1939 - Britain, France, Australia and New Zealand declare war on Germany. Sept 4, 1939 - British Royal Air Force attacks the German Navy. Yeah, it took them three days before the first engagement. Wow, they should have acted faster...<span id='postcolor'> oop's stupid me Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Longinius 1 Posted July 30, 2002 "No, but the EU might as well be. I sit and watch as the tendrils of socialism slip through Western Europe. Slowly...ohhh..sooo...slowly your rights are being taken away." Tell me, what rights of mine have been taken away? Atleast our politicians are not suggesting solutions involving neighborus spying on eachother... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
foxer 0 Posted July 30, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MDRZulu @ July 30 2002,09:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It looks to me like the military is doing a good job in afghanistan.<span id='postcolor'> They probably are but I don't think there is enough personel and possibly equipment to keep troops in Afghanistan to keep it stable plus have troops for an emergency in the states then more troops to move on to another country. I don't know the #'s but I've heard there isnt enough of em.<span id='postcolor'> They probably are but I don't think there is enough personel That's because no one wants to join the military ,because pay sucks and it's truly about life and death.I guess you can blame that on washington d.c..Did you know senators are getting 5,000 dollar raise ? How much bs is that ? Oh yeah here the best part,they get to vote if they want the raise or not. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDRZulu 0 Posted July 30, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Socialism might work for a small microcasm culture like Sweden, but not for a larger more culturaly diverse nation, such as the U.S.<span id='postcolor'> ooooooo ha! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralphwiggum 6 Posted July 30, 2002 ok...i'm getting lost here. economic policies are taking affect a few years later. right? (according to republicans) and they say Clinton was a miserable failure in economics, and his growth was NOTHING compared to Reagan era.(implying Reagan era is the best economic growth). thus, failure of economy during Clinton's era is due to his predecessors.(Bush AND Reagan). thus Bush and Reagan was a bad economy policy makers! on the other hand, the great success of Reagan era can only be explained by his predecessor, Carter! but how come Republicans say that Carter was horrible at economics then Reagan? see the point? contradiction my friend Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LauryThorn 0 Posted July 30, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">eah, it took them three days before the first engagement. Wow, they should have acted faster...<span id='postcolor'> I'm not sure whether US, but at least England declared war on Finland in 1941(?), but they did not make any actual moves on Finland.. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">British Royal Air Force attacks the German Navy. <span id='postcolor'> ..like they did in that case.. It's quite funny actually, I watched a document about North Korea, and they are still officially in war with South Korea. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralphwiggum 6 Posted July 30, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (LauryThorn @ July 30 2002,09:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's quite funny actually, I watched a document about North Korea, and they are still officially in war with South Korea.<span id='postcolor'> it's ceasefire agreement, not peace agreement. so technically they are at war. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
USSoldier11B 0 Posted July 30, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and as you said, policies's affect takes time to show. so don't claim that military strength of current US military is tahnks to IMEEDIATE increase. it's thanx to CLINTON! <span id='postcolor'> Ralph....please know the facts before you spout off. Yes, the military is doing a good job in Afghanistan, because they are good troops. Clinton passed some horrific defense budget cuts and hampered military pay raises. The fact is that the U.S. military is struggling budget wise and we are still undermanned. The immediate money given by congress after Sept 11th eased the strain a bit. Not nearly enough. No U.S. GI liked Clinton, that's why moral was low. Moral boosted immediately as soon as Bush was elected. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted July 30, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USSoldier11B @ July 30 2002,09:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am sorry to disagree. Sweden has nothing to do with Bosnia and Kosovo. Europe is not one country, if you dÃdn't know. <span id='postcolor'> No, but the EU might as well be. I sit and watch as the tendrils of socialism slip through Western Europe. Slowly...ohhh..sooo...slowly your rights are being taken away. Socialism might work for a small microcasm culture like Sweden, but not for a larger more culturaly diverse nation, such as the U.S. People are way to greedy and ambitious for it to ever work. It's a noble idea, but impractical. I fear the EU will one day be consolidated into one socialist state. If it truly works how it's supposed to then great....but I doubt it. Socialism is just another tool used by the elite totalitarian to control the masses.<span id='postcolor'> What rights exactly are you saying that are taken away? Or what rights are you saying that we don't have that you do? AFIK we have more rights in certain areas just because of socialism and liberalism (more liberal drug laws etc) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LauryThorn 0 Posted July 30, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> we are still undermanned.<span id='postcolor'> What do you need all these men for?? I don't know the figures about US army man-strength, could you enlighten me? And how much more men would you need? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
foxer 0 Posted July 30, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (LauryThorn @ July 30 2002,09:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> we are still undermanned.<span id='postcolor'> What do you need all these men for?? I don't know the figures about US army man-strength, could you enlighten me? And how much more men would you need?<span id='postcolor'> i think they have like 30,000 troops in south korea. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDRZulu 0 Posted July 30, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That's because no one wants to join the military ,because pay sucks and it's truly about life and death.I guess you can blame that on washington d.c..Did you know senators are getting 5,000 dollar raise ? How much bs is that ? Oh yeah here the best part,they get to vote if they want the raise or not. <span id='postcolor'> Well I've been thinking about joining but thats just 1 more person and probably only if I can get into flying helicopters which unfortanutly for me a good portion of other people are probably thinking about joining to do what I want to do. As for the congress thing yeaht that is alot of BS. I wonder how much money they are already getting under the table by coporations and what have you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jester983 0 Posted July 30, 2002 LOL why would you want to vote on if you wanted a raise or not. And if you said no you should be shot with an m16. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Longinius 1 Posted July 30, 2002 "LOL why would you want to vote on if you wanted a raise or not. And if you said no you should be shot with an m16." Because a vote makes the people feel more secure, since it leads most of them to believe that the politicians in question are actually doing what is best for the nation and not just doing what is best for themselves? This is the same everywhere... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDRZulu 0 Posted July 30, 2002 We need an in browser chat room at this site for this daily anti-us stuff then we wouldnt get 10 page threads in 20 minutes. It would be kind of cool I think but I doubt the mods have any control over that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted July 30, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MDRZulu @ July 30 2002,10:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We need an in browser chat room at this site for this daily anti-us stuff then we wouldnt get 10 page threads in 20 minutes. It would be kind of cool I think but I doubt the mods have any control over that.<span id='postcolor'> Don't worry, I'm keeping an eye on this topic. Although this isn't a new discussion it is still civilized so far. If it degrades to a "uh..you suck! - no *you* suck" discussion (which it probably will) then I'll close it down Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted July 30, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MDRZulu @ July 30 2002,10:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">uh..you suck!<span id='postcolor'> Of course, if the majority of the posters in the thread behave, I might choose to post restrict the disturbing individuals instead Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tex -USMC- 0 Posted July 30, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ July 30 2002,08:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The ghettos are a result of your 'arbeit macht frei' politics where only the strong and the capable can succeed in the system<span id='postcolor'> Ouch, that hurts. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tex -USMC- 0 Posted July 30, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Harnu @ July 30 2002,09:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">According to all my history classes about WWII, from a little after the war started the U.S. supplied the Allies with food and I belive some equipment. Â Small stuff like radios and such.<span id='postcolor'> We sold 50 destroyers to England for a few bases in the Carribean- that was the first major Lend-Lease deal of the war. We supplied Russia with so much equipment that in some cases they wouldnt have to bother repairing trucks when they broke down- they could just hop into a new one. Also, a US destroyer (The Reuben James, I believe), was sunk on escort duty in the Atlantic during '40 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
